I have much potential that I do not actualize. I have the potential (or opportunity) to smoke crack every day, but I choose not to. Surely, who I am is partially the non-actualization of this potential.

I think it bears significance that there are potentials that are actualized and those that are not. Surely, both make us who we are (as much as who we are not), and some are very much under our control, and are thus a choice on our part. Why do some people actualize some potentials that others do not? It surely is not simply because those people have potentials that others do not—it is not that simple. And yet, people do not all have the same potential, or at least opportunity. They may have the same potential but different opportunity. A girl born in, say, rural China may have within her the potential to be a world-class pianist, but if she never is exposed to a piano, if she is not afforded with the opportunity to actualize that potential, it will most likely lie dormant and escape notice at all. But, we can say that she has the opportunity to get herself out of China and get to a place where her potential may be actualized. It is not necessarily impossible. And so, in this way, she does have some control. Either way, it seems to me that what we are (a human, a cat, a tree, etc.) is much less of a choice than who we are. While we cannot completely separate what we are from who we are, we certainly control the latter more than the former.

Can there be a who without a what? Can there be matter without form? Form without matter? Which is form and which is matter: the ‘who’ or the ‘what?’ Or, is it not limited to these choices? This brings up interesting yet problematical issues. It also could be connected in some way to illusion vs. reality, in the sense that if reality (who we really are) is the absence of illusion (who we (think we) are), we could see who we are as the matter (the potential) and who we really are as the form (the realized potential, though accomplished via negativa—, i.e., who we really are is (‘revealed’) in the absence of our conditioned ego-self), and this is how our paths of ego-illusion are our paths to reality, the self as the path, that the illusory self is the path; it is the potential of the reality of its own absence. It is interesting to combine these ideas, because one is metaphysically positive (form and matter), and one is metaphysically negative (illusion vs. reality).

We can also ask if there can be matter that is not itself formed matter, the actualization of previous potential. Would this be pure potential? Is form physical or metaphysical? Is matter physical and form (shape) metaphysical? It is hard to say that shape is physical. It has to do with physical material, but it itself is more of a force than physical matter. There can be no shape without something shaped. Of course, this is a great debate between the Platonists and Aristotelians—can shape exist independently of matter? Plato says yes, Aristotle says no.

This has everything to do with our understanding of existence. Can form exist without matter? How? Where? Aristotle says there cannot be form without matter (can you imagine matter—anything—that does not have some sort of form?) There cannot be ‘square’ without there being a thing in that shape. And yet, Plato might have said that an example of a circular object is but an actualization of the potential form that had to exist in order for that object to take that shape in the first place. It is not an easy issue to resolve. And as usual with such impasses, I always like to look at the basic assumptions involved, for it is most likely our own lack of understanding is causing the problem. One of these basic assumptions is the metaphysical existence of physical matter as noun-things, something which may not actually be true, which we can see at a quantum level.

Anyhow, it seems to come down to how a thing exists, as opposed to simply whether it exists. Is a line in circular form a circle, or is a circle 2πr (the mathematical expression of “circumference”)? But we speak of the circumference of a circle, so circumference itself cannot be a circle. But—and this is an important point—perhaps we are mistaken to speak of the circumference ‘of’ a circle because maybe ‘a circle’ is really circumference, and it is a grammatical error to speak about a circle’s circumference. It is absurd and meaningless, for it is like speaking about a circumference’s circumference, which is impossible. If this is indeed true, then there is not ‘circle,’ only ‘circumference.’

This is yet another instance of the importance of not mistaking grammar for reality: we make certain metaphysical assumptions when we talk about ‘the circumference of a circle.’ This grammatical way of talking about ‘a circle’ has, itself, defined for us the metaphysical parameters. But, grammar does not make metaphysical reality, does it? We mistakenly make assumptions based on the metaphysical assumptions inherent in the grammar we use to talk about things. This is a major mistake, and a source of great confusion.

In fact, we might say that it is incorrect to speak of a ‘circle’ at all; rather it is more accurate to speak of something being circular—in the above example, it is a line in circular form. And actually, circle, or any shape at all, is a wholly abstract concept, for such concepts are not physical things at all, but rather forms. There is no physical circle, only a physical thing that may be circular, only matter in the form, or shape, of what we call ‘circle.’ Thus, we can say that there are only examples of circle, the circular form. And to Aristotle, there are only examples, only examples are, only examples exist. Examples are what is real. And, in fact, it is incorrect to use the word ‘example,’ for that implies an example of something. Now, when that thing is just an illusory, abstracted concept, as it is to Aristotle, then that’s fine, but it is a problem when that thing is imagined to be a real thing (in fact, the only real thing in the equation), as it is to Plato.

To go with the form and matter discussion, our physical bodies are not all of our ‘matter’—if we take matter to be more than simply material and see it more as potential—for who we are is not simply our physiology. In fact, the form and matter theory becomes problematical in regards to natural, as opposed to created, things. In the brick analogy, the matter of the brick is the clay. A human’s matter would seemingly be his flesh and bone, etc., the material, in other words, of which he is formed. But when we answer the ‘whatness’ question, we answer with this material, for all humans are made up of this material. So the material (matter, thus understood) is the form, if the whatness is the form. What, then, is the matter of organic things?

Anyhow, who we are is more a product, or the process, of our ‘karma’, our choices, the circumstances of our lives. If this is the case, then matter follows form, which doesn’t fit into the theory. It seems, then, that the Aristotelian substance explains ‘what,’ but not ‘who.’ But, in the way that every end is a beginning and every beginning is an end, we can also say that every formed matter is also matter to be formed, every realized potential is also itself potential to be realized—for it is our minds that separate into ‘this’ and ‘that’ what may in reality not be separate.

We can also talk in terms of causes, that everything has a material cause (its whys, where and what it came from) and formal cause (its purpose, function, how it ends up). It is a question of what is behind and ahead of a thing in time. Where do we draw the lines of the thing, if it is itself the material cause of something else and the formal cause of something else? Where does death and birth fit into this?

What does all this have to do with the ‘real world?’ Well, I think that we can see people as being form and matter, as having potential to actualize. I think that we can see this matter as that potential, both in a physical and ‘spiritual’ sense. In that way, this potential, this matter, is who someone is. This matter can be formed in many ways, many of those ways existing as illusions. It seems to me that our formal cause can partly be understood as the realization of that matter, that potential. And in other terms, it could be called ‘enlightenment’—the process of knowing and being who you really are. It really does have a lot to do with my overarching themes and ideas about the difference between ‘who someone i’s and ‘who they really are’, between illusion and reality.

The interesting thing about potential is that if there is such thing as potential, a form as yet unrealized, then Plato is right about his notion that form can exist without matter. For matter enters a mold that was already there. How else could it take on that form if the form was not already there for it to take?

Again, I think the shortcoming here is in my lack of true understanding. For it is simply impossible for us to think about potential without there being something having (that) potential.

Again, I think the solution to the riddle is in the ‘logic’ of reality being the absence of illusion. Such an idea is not within a framework of time, of one being before the other, which is how we think about form and matter, potential either unrealized or realized.

.

From my personal notes 8/1/00

If our conditioned existences are like a house of cards, the way to deconstruct the house is not to add to it, but to remove cards carefully and mindfully.

Remember that the idea is to remove the cards from the table, not to simply rearrange them or let them fall to the tabletop, because they have a tendency to creep back to the edifice and attach somewhere else.

I can see a way of looking at what academia does as being a scaffolding on which we can climb up to the top and work with the cards on top…but this may not really be possible. What we may think is scaffolding is probably just going to end up being more cards that we mistake for scaffolding.

This is, perhaps, one of the reasons why I have less patience, as time goes on, with such scaffolding, with the technical jargon that academic disciplines construct around themselves; because they do not seem to have anything to do with the process of really seeking and seeing truth, and often have everything to do with what is wrong with the world, with what keeps people from pursuing enlightenment. It is also maybe why I feel that “art” is the only way to get to truth.

This speaks to another thing I have been thinking about lately, and that is the difference between art and art criticism. I find myself having less patience with the descriptions of art and how people try to articulate what the art is, or what it means, or what it stands for. Such descriptions and criticism, if done well, can help us to experience the art in ways that we might not have been able to without it, and as such, almost becomes a part of the work (for real art is alive); but, unfortunately, this is rare. What we usually get is more illusions, words and ideas pregnant with assumptions and “certainties” which actually serve to do the opposite of what good art is supposed to do—bring us close to reality/truth (of life, experience, whatever).

It is also one of the reasons why I have thus far chosen to not formally study writing, or theater, or film. “Art,” to me, is a way to help us understand ourselves better, it is a way of forming truth and reality in a way that speaks to us, touches us, helps us awaken. I am not concerned with technique-as-art. I think that many people mistake technique for art. What I am concerned with is truth. If something is true, then it is good. Truth transcends such trivial human concepts of good and bad. If it is true, it is good, if it is not, then it is bad. Many people see only the technique and judge that.

Again, technique is not art. By focusing on technique, one is—like my cat does—staring at my finger as opposed to what I am pointing to. Technique is the finger. Truth is what the finger is (or, at least, should be) pointing to. If it points to truth, then it is art, and how well it does that is the determinant as to whether it is good art or not.

.

From my personal notes, 7/30/00

It is simply a fact, given the inescapable truth of context in human thought, that some ideas are less valid than others. And it is also a fact that ideas and philosophies run the human world.

It is ideas and philosophies that dictate and control every aspect of our lives. And given the truth of illusion vs. reality, there are ideas and opinions that are wrong, and those that are right. Of course, one of the things that someone who has the strength to pursue enlightenment realizes is that it is the identification of what is wrong that gets us closer to what is “right,” if such a thing exists. If, as I think, reality is the absence of illusion, then it is possible that, when it comes to human thought, human rationality and logic, there is only wrong, and no “right.”

People who want to say that everyone’s opinion is equally valid are betraying their own fear and weakness, and especially their own ignorance. Again, the basis for what I consider to be right and wrong (not “morally”; it is better to understand these words as “correct” and “incorrect”) is context. The human mind processes (or, at least, understands) information and perceptions in context. That is, I contend, irrefutable. I am not saying that I am talking about Reality (“with a capital R”), but rather the validity of human ideas and opinions, given the context in which they are understood.

The human rational mind does not necessarily process perceptions as how they exist outside of the context of the human mind. So, in this way, I am not speaking about Reality independent of the human mind. The philosophies and ideas that control our lives exist within the context of the human mind, and thus in the realm of the contexts in which the human mind functions. Given context, there are certainly such things as “correct” and “incorrect.”

We do not have any other way of determining whether something is correct or incorrect outside of the realm of context. Am I wrong?

Since it is possible that every idea we have—every concept, opinion, and processed perception—is essentially illusory, this is why I say that it is probable that there is only “wrong” when it comes to human ideas, for illusions are “wrong” in relation to reality, which is “right.” As such, every idea we have is “wrong,” in the sense that it does not speak to reality, but to our ideas and perceptions in a given context, a context which is partially dictated by the physiological makeup of the human brain (see Kant), and partially dictated by our conditioning.

This is, I think, what the Buddhists are talking about when they say that everything is illusion. Many people interpret this as meaning that nothing exists. But I do not think this is what it is saying. Rather, it is more like the Kantian idea of a thing-in-itself vs. how it is perceived by the human mind, and never the twain shall meet. But, I am not convinced that the twain can never meet.

Most people limit human thought to what they consider to be “rationality,” which is based on logic, which is utterly dependent on the contexts of the human mind. But since it is quite obvious that there were things before there were humans, we can say that there is reality outside the context of human thought, though since “we” cannot escape the confines of our minds and the way we think, we cannot know what that reality is not in relation to ourselves. This is, again, because of context. It is also, to me, the brilliance of what Kant pointed out, as well as the Buddhist/Hindu concept of illusion vs. reality.

Many people assume that there is no way for us to escape the confines of the rational human mind, and thus to experience or understand reality as opposed to the matrix of illusions we all live in. I am not so sure I agree with this. The reason I cannot agree with it is the process of enlightenment. While it is the most difficult thing one can do, it is possible to break down the illusions of our conditioned existences. It is possible to see an illusion for what it is, to see that something we really thought was real and true was actually an illusion. That is reality; it is the process of reality. And since this is possible, it is also possible to do it more, and do it better, and that the more one does it, the further away one gets from “the matrix,” and the closer one gets to reality.

Yes, this is a rational, logical train of thought. There is nothing wrong with rationality and logic. What is wrong is to make assumptions about what logic is and what it can and cannot do for us.

I do not think that within the conditioned contexts in which we think we can get to reality. But I do think that we can use logic for what it is—a tool to help us transcend those conditioned contexts.

We do not know logic outside of the context of our conditioned existences. And, as such, we cannot think that we can understand—let alone describe—the merits of logic outside of this conditioned existence. As such, perhaps it is not logic that is the problem, but the conditioning. This is, to me, where Western and Eastern philosophies meet, and where hope lies in getting beyond the impasse at which I think Western philosophy and theology are currently mired.

.

From my personal notes, 7/30/00

The beautiful thing about reality and truth is that once it is accepted and realized, one sees just how weak the system really is, and how the power that comes with being free of the system is limitless.

Most people who live in the system, in ‘the Matrix,’ are controlled by their ignorance, weakness, greed, and most especially, by their fears. They fear reality and freedom more than anything, and that fear pervades all of their beliefs, assumptions, and prejudices. This is the hardest fight of all, for I am fighting for the freedom of those who do not yet want to be free. It is a long road, and I can only be a part of the struggle, but I cannot help but do what I can so that I may contribute what I can to this most worthy of causes. I oppose the system, and I will resist, resist, resist!

The more I learn and understand, the more I realize that truth is on my side. By that I mean that the best, and possibly only, way to help people free themselves is to help them to realize and accept that, deep down, they really do want it. This is tied to the fact that, deep down, we all—every single person who has ever lived—have wanted the same things. We all want happiness and love; we want to be loved for who we really are, and we want to be able to love. While many people may agree with this, the difference between walking a path of true awakening and self-delusion rests on one’s understanding (or misunderstanding) of what love and happiness really are. It’s funny, but while everyone wants to be happy, while everyone wants love, when they are confronted with the fact that they need to ‘fire’ their egos to get there, people resist and protest.

So many people’s happiness and enlightenment hinges on their conditioned and assumed dualistic way of seeing themselves and the world around them.

.

From my personal notes, 7/17/00

It is ironic that an ideology whose nature is weakness and fear could spread so widely over the world, infect so many people. More ironic is that those people have been allowed throughout history to oppress and manipulate the people of the world with such impunity.

Of course, the reason it has spread so much is precisely because of weakness—weakness and selfishness that has been tapped into by such ideology and actions. It is an ideology that feeds on ignorance, fear, and weakness, all of which are fairly ubiquitous in humans at this stage of our development. And so, in this way, it makes a lot of sense. It’s like the new toy that every kid just has to have, and how fads spring up and spread.

As such, we live in societies run by bullies. How absurd that such people have been allowed to rule the school yard for so long. Well, I for one, have had enough of it, and will no longer stand idly by while they continue to run the show (at least where I am concerned). I will no longer subject my will and spirit to such puerile and insipid beliefs and illusions. I will no longer support this vile, yet very subtle, system of repression and ‘spiritual slavery’.

While it is ultimately each person who enslaves him/herself, we live in a society, and in a system, which encourages ignorance, dependence, and weakness, thereby allowing those in control to stay in control. Rather than support such a manipulative and oppressive system any longer, I will challenge, provoke, and fight against this tyrannical system that holds all people within its grip in bondage.

The hard part is that most people do not even realize that they are in bondage; and, in fact, when confronted with the truth, will fight against it, will fight to stay in bondage, for they do not really want real freedom. They think they have it good, and they think they are pretty darn happy, thank you very much, and if they are not happy, they are conditioned to blame that which is not to blame, to hold others responsible for what is actually in their own control.

This is the subtle brilliance of a system based on selfish desire, because as long as you feed the desire-beast in people, they will continue to enslave themselves.

People are so conditioned to want material things, to think that material things and money bring happiness, that they will fight against anything that threatens their accumulation of material wealth. And so, the system is set up to condition people to see their salvation as their enemy, to resist and reject the true key to their happiness, because they do not see a key, they see a thief. This is the sly modus operandi of the ego.

.

From my personal notes, 7/17/00

Many people who mistake cynicism for maturity point to human history, and the fact that humans have acted more like other animals than not, as evidence that it is “natural,” or what they call “human nature,” to behave in such ways. This is as ridiculous as looking at the behavior of a child for lessons on ethics.

One of the fascinating things about human beings—about any sentient being—is that our level of evolution seems to have outpaced our level of maturity. We are like young children who see everything as a toy (which is the way my cat sees most things). To look at the way humans have acted as evidence of how we should act, or what is right or wrong, let alone “natural,” is as silly as assuming that the future will always resemble the past. It is as silly as mistaking the way things have been for the way things have to be.

We modern humans do not seem to have any idea how we fit into the rest of nature. And it does not take an investigative reporter to look at humans and see our enormous capacity and potential for compassion and self-control. The fact that most people do not actualize this compassion or self-control does not mean that they can’t. It is in this one simple idea that so many arguments for this idea of what is or is not “human nature,” and the ways in which that concept is used to justify behavior or ideologies, just crumble.

What about killing for food? I think that the very fact that we can question whether or not we should kill for food, let alone for other, truly unenlightened reasons, means that it is not a “given” that it is “Right” to eat meat. A lion, in his natural environment, doesn’t have any other choices for sustenance that could keep him healthy other than flesh. And while the substitutes that humans have may be inadequate at this point (Tofurky? Gofurky yourself…), that doesn’t mean that substitutes will necessarily be inadequate in the future. The point being that it is very possible that we will get to the point when we will not have any biological need to kill animals for food to keep ourselves nutritionally healthy. If we do not need to kill animals for food, then what are good reasons for killing them at all? Sport? Please.

But I think we have come to an interesting issue, and that is the reasons why people kill. I think it is safe to say that there are no reasons for killing other people that we could consider to be enlightened or mature. Self-defense? I’m not sure if that falls into the enlightened or unenlightened realm. But it is important to consider. If someone is going to kill me, is it okay for me to kill him? One of the things about this, though, is that we do not necessarily have to kill someone who’s intent is killing us, do we? We could, perhaps, disable him, and thus avoid death or serious injury. But then this does bring up the issue of intention. What if we kill someone and didn’t mean to?

The notion that “killing is bad” is a lot more complex than it might seem at first glance.

.

From my personal notes, 7/16/00

One of the reasons this is such a confusing question is this idea of “nature,” and what is “natural.” We need only look out at nature to see what we would consider to be violence and murder galore. It is the way of the jungle, so to speak, for animals to kill, and eat each other. This is a part of the very biology of many living beings. When we say that it is wrong to kill, is it wrong for a lion to kill and eat a zebra?

Some people are hesitant to have different standards for different living beings. I no longer have that hesitation. I think that it is obvious that we should have different standards of conduct—and expectations of maturity—for children and adults. And I think that we should think of the animal kingdom in this way as well. Now, this does not mean that we should see ourselves as “superior,” or the “rulers of the animal kingdom,” or any other part of nature. That is a huge, and incredibly fallacious, logical leap, which only serves to hinder our own progress. Such ideas are manifestations of childishness and immaturity, complicated by the fact that many organized religions have preached this very idea, and so people have been conditioned to believe this idea of human “superiority” (in the sense of being of more worth and value than other living things), and to accept it as a given. This is as unenlightened as thinking that just because you are an adult, and (supposedly) more mature than your child, that means you are superior to your child, that the child has less intrinsic worth than you. Unfortunately, this is a prevalent idea in our unenlightened society which treats children as so much property. And, in fact, the unenlightened notion of ownership and personal property is a contributor to this nonsense.

I think that the point is that we are not the same as other animals. As such, I think it is as silly to take the example of a lion killing a zebra as evidence that it is “natural” for living beings to kill other living beings as it would be to take the example of a child’s narcissism as evidence that it is natural to be narcissistic.

.

From my personal notes, 7/16/00

The problem that I have with dogmas, and the idea of commandments, is that they are antithetical to enlightenment, in that they do not encourage/espouse self-control, but rather doing what you’re told.

Such religious, and even secular, commandments are means of controlling a populace that cannot seemingly control itself. The whole idea of enlightenment is self-awareness and actualization, a part of which is the idea that one should not need to be controlled, but should be in control of him/herself. And so the idea of the Buddha making a commandment such as “thou shalt not kill” seems inconsistent with the truth of the teachings of enlightenment.

My understanding of this is that there has been a separation between the/a “Buddha” and “Buddhism”, or put another way, between Buddhist philosophy and Buddhist religion.

Organized religion has always seemed to me to be all about control and manipulation—getting people to do what is “right,” not because it is right, but because of fear and greed. Again, it’s the same way one controls a child—by manipulating him with his own fears and desires.

.

From my personal notes, 7/16/00

Ah, I think we are on to something here.

I read somewhere that Jesus advocated turning the other cheek in the “ideal” situation, but that he advocated other methods if one is not in such an ideal situation.

In a very real sense, if the enlightened—who will naturally lean towards non-violence—allow themselves to all be killed off by the unenlightened, then, at the end of the day, there will only be unenlightened people around, and no one to help them become more enlightened and learn to not need violence the way they think they do as unenlightened beings.

Does this mean that I advocate violence? I’m not sure, really, but I will tell say this much: If I had a daughter, say, and someone was going to kill her unless I killed them, I would kill them in a heartbeat. Does that make it right? I do not know, nor would I care in such a situation.

The point here is that I think that it is unwise, and perhaps even a bit unproductive, to lay down a commandment such as “it is wrong to kill,” because that is not that simple. Of course, maybe a truly enlightened person would not look at the death of my child as such a bad thing, because it is the way of the world, but I think that this is an incorrect understanding of enlightenment and “acceptance of reality.” It is one thing to accept reality and not be deluded by illusion, but it is quite another thing to accept as good and right actions that are controlled by illusion. If those who pursue and see the truth of enlightenment look at “samsara”—and those things that cause it—as essentially “wrong” and “bad,” then the actions that result from samsara cannot be seen as “good” or “right.” Otherwise, there would be no reason to try and help people escape the cycle of samsara, right?

I think what this points out is that it is extremely difficult—and fraught with problems—to declare an absolute moral tenet, for morality itself is relative and in the realm of illusion.

The interesting point to consider is whether it is right or wrong to try to apply enlightened ideology to an unenlightened situation or society.

It’s the same sort of issue of whether it would be wise to go out into a raging battle in a war without armor or protection, and try to reason with the combatants about the evils of war. That doesn’t seem very wise to me. You would get killed pretty quickly, and if you did have wisdom to share with the world, it sure wouldn’t be shared anymore.

.

From my personal notes, 7/16/00

I do not think I believe in sacrifice, at least in the way it is commonly understood, for anything that could be called a sacrifice can be seen another way—not as a sacrifice, but as the way things are. It becomes an issue of attitude, how it is seen and judged.

I also do not believe in the idea of sacrifice as a demonstration of obeisance or subordination (to a “god,” for just one example), as that is all about manipulation and power over others—a dis-respectable trait in anyone, including leaders and parental figures.

And, so, I suppose I do not believe in the idea of sacrifice, for any instance of sacrifice is, I think, really just a case of wrong attitude, weakness, hubris, or ignorance, and, as such, should not be revered or respected, but criticized for the fraud that it is.

Along these lines, I suppose that one of the reasons I have a problem with this idea of Jesus dying for everyone’s sins is that I do not believe in the idea of “sin.” And so the problem is not any shortcoming on my part, but rather the sophism and misguided nature of the story itself. It is as fallacious as pontificating about how soldiers in Vietnam “died for our freedom.” It is simply a crock, a lie, and the reality is that they died for the brutish, selfish, and misguided ideologies of weak and blind men in power; just like Jesus, in fact.

.

From my personal notes, 7/16/00